Disturbing communications and problematic approaches to the Dutch Royal Family

Abstract

Since the mass murder committed by Karst T. on Queensday 2009 in the Netherlands, special attention has been drawn to threat assessment of people who are a concern because of their disturbing communications and/or problematic approaches to the Dutch Royal Family. This descriptive study examined all subjects (N = 107) referred to the Threat Assessment Unit of the Netherlands National Police Agency who engaged in disturbing communications (N = 414) or problematic approaches (N = 122) toward the Dutch Royal Family during the period 1995–2010. Statistical analysis explored differences among three subgroups: those who only communicated, those who only approached, and those who did both. The vast majority of all subjects were mentally ill. Consistent with the public figure research in other countries, we found that the last subgroup used multiple means of communication more frequently (p = .01) and made communications which were less threatening (p = .02) than people who only communicated. Other differences which distinguished those who both communicated and approached from at least one of the other two groups were a history of property crime (theft, robbery, or burglary), property damage, not engaging in recommended psychiatric treatment, seeking attention to solve a perceived problem, and pathological fixation. The results are compared with the published findings concerning communications, approaches, attacks, and assassinations of public figures, and recommendations are made to help threat assessment professionals identify more quickly and easily those disturbing communicators who are likely to approach.

Keywords:

• violent offence
• violence
• stalking
• risk factors
• risk assessments
• mentally ill offenders

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the security and protection department as well as the behavioral analysis department of the Netherlands National Police Agency. The authors are grateful for the opportunity they provided to study their case files and gather data. The authors also want to thank Professor B.C.M. Raes, forensic psychiatrist, for his support of the Dutch authors with the psychiatric aspects of this study.